866 Phil. 400
INTING, J.:
That on or about January 04, 2010, in the City of San Pablo, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused above-named, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and treachery and employing means to weaken the defense, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously repeatedly stab one MICHAEL A. CLARIANES with three (3) different bladed weapons, with which the accused were then conveniently provided, thereby inflicting stab wounds upon the person of said Michael A. Clarianes which caused his immediate death.Upon arraignment, the appellants pleaded not guilty.[5] Thus, trial ensued.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
On 4 January 2010, at around 10:00 p.m., while Michael Clarianes ("Michael") and Alma Exconde ("Alma") were seated on a bench and engaged in a conversation, three (3) male persons on board a motorcycle arrived near the shores of Sampaloc Lake, Brgy. 5-A, San Pablo City. Two (2) of them alighted from the motorcycle, one went in front of Michael and Alma and urinated along the banks of the lake, while the other went behind a coconut tree nearby. The former then told his companions, "pare, tawagan natin si pare." One of his companions replied, "siguro'y tulog na pero tawagan na din natin."As for the version of the defense:
Ten minutes later, the man who urinated suddenly approached Alma and pointed a knife to her neck. Likewise, the person who hid behind the coconut tree approached Michael and pointed a knife at him. The men then announced, "holdap ito ilabas na ninyo ang inyong cellphone pera at alahas at hindi kayo mamamatay wag lang kayong maingay."
Thereafter, the person who stayed at the motorcycle approached Michael and Alma, brandishing a "kawit." Michael cried for help and attempted to fight. The three men however, repeatedly stabbed Michael until he slumped on the ground lifeless. Alma sought help but nobody came to help them. After stabbing Michael, the three persons scampered away, prompting Alma to once again ask for help. Minutes later, a mobile patrol arrived. Michael was brought to Ace Funeral Homes where he was pronounced dead.
x x x x[6]
On the other hand, accused-appellants denied the charges against them and interposed their respective alibis.The Postmortem Examination Report[8] revealed that Michael A. Clarianes (Michael) death was caused by the stab wounds in the body involving the left lung and great vessels, to wit:
Maron, a construction worker, testified that in the evening of 4 January 2010, he was at their house at Brgy. San Lucas I, San Pablo City with his parents, aunt, and six sibling . He allegedly watched the television before going to bed at around 11:00 p.m. The following morning, PO2 Sacdalan came to Maron's house and bought the latter to the police station to line up in front of a lady witness who identified him as one o the assailants of Michael.
Almario claims to be a magkakawit ng niyog and a co-worker of the father of his co-accused Bulahan. He testified that on 4 January 2010, at around 7:00 p.m., he and his two children were at their house located near Brion Subdivision, Brgy. San Lucas I, San Pablo City. After dinner, they went to bed and rested. At around 10:00 a.m. of the following day, while he was taking a bath, five police officers led by PO2 Sacdalan went to the house, handcuffed and arrested him. He was then brought to the police station where he was told to stand in a police line-up. He was identified by Alma as one of the persons who stabbed Michael.
Bulahan testified that he was a helper at Siete-Tres, a small canteen located in front of Seven Eleven along Maharlika Highway, San Pablo City. On 4 January 2010, he reported for work at 8:00 a.m. and went home together with his wife Andrea Balino at 8:00 p.m. After having dinner at home, he, his wife, and his parents went to sleep. The next day, he went to work at 6:00 a.m. At around 10:00 a.m. of 5 January 2010, several policemen arrived and arrested him. He was brought to a police van where he saw Almario, Maron, his wife and a certain Pale. They proceeded to the police station and were asked to stand in a police line-up.[7]
At the time of the incident, Michael was 27 years old and employed on probationary status by Hesper's Garment Corporation, receiving a daily salary of P293.00.[10]CAUSE OF DEATH: STAB WOUNDS IN THE BODY INVOLVING THE LEFT LUNG AND GREAT VESSELS.[9]
- lacerated wound - 5 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm, head, parietal area, right
- lacerated wound- 4 cm x 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm head, mid-frontal area
- stab wound - 5 cm x 2 cm x 9 cm chest, left, anterior axillary line in between the 2nd and 3rd ribs, directed postero-medially, penetrating the upper lobe of the lung, left and the aorta
- stab wound - 5 cm x 2 cm x 11 cm chest, lateral axillary line, directed postero-medially, penetrating the upper lobe of the lung, left and the interior vena cava
- stab wound - 5 cm x 2 cm abdomen, lower quadrant, left, hitting and exposing the small intestines.
The RTC further ruled that the third, fourth, and fifth stab wounds of Michael: two on the chest, and one on the abdomen were fatal as described in the Postmortem Examination Report.[16] It further ruled that the attack on Michael was sudden; thus, it provided him with no opportunity to be able to defend himself from the moment Maron approached Alma and Michael, pointed his knife at Alma, announced "hold-up," and up to the time that Bulahan poked his knife at Michael and appellants repeatedly stabbed Michael.[17]
Q: Madam Witness, in that place where you went together with Michael Clarianes, at 10:00 p.m., were there other people around that place? A: None, there were other persons who passed by but none actually was there at the place of the incident, sir. Q: Am I correct to say, Madam Witness, that when you arrived there, the accused were not yet there? A: Yes, sir. Q: You mentioned a while ago an electric post, which is eight (8) meters from your place? A: Yes, sir. Q: And you also mentioned that there were trees around? A: Yes, sir. Q: Do you recall which are taller, the electric post or the trees? A: The trees were taller than the electric post, sir. Q: What kind of trees are you referring to? A: I think it is Mahogany, sir. Q: Do you recall whether these trees have many leaves? A: Yes, sir. Q: Madam Witness, you mentioned the first one of the accused in this case urinated, how far from you? A: One and a half (1 & 1/2) meters, sir. Q: How about the second accused whom you mentioned stayed near the motorcycle, how far was he from you? A: At that post, estimated to be about four (4) meters sir. Q: How about the other person whom you mentioned, who stayed behind the tree, how far was he from you at that time? A: About one (1) meter, sir. Q: The first accused was in front of you, which you said one and a half (1 & 1/2) meters as you mentioned, do you recall what he wore? A: A white t-shirt, sir. Q: Was he wearing short pants? A: Short pants, sir. Q: How about the second accused, four (4) meters away from you, and near the motorcycle, do you recall what he wore? A: White t-shirt and short pants sir. Q: And how about the third accused? A: Colored t-shirt and short pants, sir. Q: Madam Witness, you mentioned a while ago that from the arrival of the three (3) accused, you noticed.... I will withdraw that, Your Honor. You mentioned a while ago that there was something wrong when these three (3) accused arrived, surrounding you and yet you mentioned that you suspected something will happen and you still talking for ten (10) minutes? A: Yes, sir. Q: In this case, you were talking, you and Michael Clarianes, did the three (3) persons stay in the place where they positioned themselves in that place they stayed there? A: The male person who urinated, walked to and from, the place near us, as if they were bothered by something, sir. Q: How about the accused in the motorcycle? A: Almario did not leave and stayed in the motorcycle, sir. Q: How about the third person? A: He stayed near the coconut tree, sir. Q: If he is behind the coconut tree, can you see his face? A: Yes, sir.[15]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered FINDING all three accused JEFFERSON MARON y EMPLONA, JONATHAN ALMARIO y CAYGO and NESTOR BULAHAN y GUTIERREZ, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder as charged in the Information, and hereby IMPOSES on them the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, with all the accessory penalties, and to pay the heirs of victim Michael Clarianes the following:The three accused are hereby ordered committed to the National Bilibid Prisons immediately.
- P50,000.00, as civil indemnity;
- P54,000.00, as actual and compensatory damages;
- P50,000.00, as moral damages;
- P25,000.00, as exemplary damages;
- P1,230,600.00, as and for loss of earning capacity of the victim; and
- Costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.[20]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 4 November 2014 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32 of San Pablo City in Criminal Case No. 17492-SP(10) is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:Hence, this appeal.[23]
All accused-appellants JEFFERSON MARON y EMPLONA, JONATHAN ALMARIO y CAYGO and NESTOR BULAHAN y GUTIERREZ are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, attended by the aggravating circumstance of treachery, and sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole under RA 9346. They are ordered to pay solidarily the heirs of victim Michael Clarianes the following:They are likewise ordered to pay the interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the time of finality of this decision until fully paid, to be imposed on all awards and damages.
- Php 100,000.00 as civil indemnity;
- Php 54,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages;
- Php 100,000.00 as moral damages;
- Php 100,000.00 as exemplary damages;
- Php 1,230,600.00 for loss of earning capacity of the victim; and
- Costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.[22]
Art. 248 Murder. - Any person, who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:The elements of Murder are: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.[26]
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;x x x x
In their appeal, appellants questioned the presence of the second element. They argued that Alma could not have seen their faces since, coupled with the suddenness and brevity of the attack, there was no sufficient illumination to allow Alma to identify the perpetrators of the crime.[28] They also argued that based on Alma's testimony, the area was covered with mahogany trees, which were heavy with foliage; thus, the only source of light which came from the overhanging electric post would have cast shadows over the faces of Michael's attackers.[29]
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY PROS. OSCAR T. CO: x x x xQ: So, after one of them, I will withdraw that. So, while they were doing that, do you recall what happened next, if any?A: After we were talking for about ten (10) minutes, Jefferson Maron urinated at the lake and then he approached me and poked a knife on my leeg and the person who was near the tree poked a knife to Michael. The person who urinated in front of us told us, hold-up, and demanded for our money. The person who standing before the motorcycle holding a karet and swayed it in front of us, sir.Q: While doing this, while poking the knife at you and Michael Clarianes, what if any you did?A: Michael Clarianes shouted, "tulong", we were being hold-up, so the three (3) accused ganged up on Michael sir.Q: What these three (3) accused did to Michael Clarianes?A: Walang awa po nilang pinagsasaksak at pinatay si Michael Clarianes, sir.Q: Did you see them stabbed Michael Clarianes, each of them?A: Yes, sir. COURTQ: Who first stabbed Michael Clarianes?A: I cannot recall who first stabbed Michael Clarianes but what I know that the person who approached me and poked a knife on my neck stabbed Michael Clarianes, Your Honor.Q: How about the one who went near Michael Clarianes, what did you see him doing?A: I saw that he hit with his karet Michael's head and slashed his stomach with a karet, Your Honor.Q: And after you saw the three (3) accused stabbed Michael Clarianes, what else did you do?A: I shouted for help. I said "tulong" for two (2) times, "my companion was being killed, and there was a man but he was just looking for us, Your Honor."Q: When the accused ran away, where was Michael Clarianes at that time?A: He was already lying down and dead, Your Honor.[27]
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances:In People v. Revillame,[41] the Court quoted People v. Cabiling (Cabiling),[42] which in turn explained and adopted Cuello Calon's view on the appreciation of abuse of superior strength or employing means to weaken the defense. The Court in Cabiling discussed:
x x x x
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.
To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of the defense available to the person attacked. According to Cuello Calon, it is: "'Abuse of superior numbers or employment of means to weaken the defense' (art. 10, 8.a.). This circumstance greatly resembles alevosia when placed in a situation of advantage over those on whom it is employed, such that one is confused for the other. This circumstance should always be considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. To properly appreciate it, not only is it necessary to evaluate the physical conditions of the protagonists of opposing forces and the arms or objects employed by both sides, but it is also necessary to analyze the incidents and episodes constituting the development of the event. There is no need for previous agreement among the aggressors." Thus in People v. Verzo, this Court held that there was abuse of superior strength which qualified the killing where three of the defendants were wielding bolos, whereas the victim was unarmed and trying to flee.[43] (Citations omitted.)Further, in People v. Loreto,[44] the Court ruled that there are no fixed and invariable rules regarding abuse of superior strength or employing means to weaken the defense.[45] The Court explained:
x x x Article 14, paragraph 15 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a crime against persons is aggravated by the accused taking advantage of superior strength. There are no fixed and invariable rules regarding abuse of superior strength or employing means to weaken the defense of the victim. Superiority does not always mean numerical superiority. Abuse of superiority depends upon the relative strength of the aggressor vis-a-vis the victim. There is abuse of superior strength even if there is only one malefactor and one victim. Abuse of superiority is determined by the excess of the aggressor's natural strength over that of the victim, considering the position of both and the employment of means to weaken the defense, although not annulling it. The aggressor must have advantage of his natural strength to insure the commission of the crime.[46] (Italics supplied.)Following the discussion of Cuello Calon in Cabiling,[47] abuse of superior strength and employment of means are taken as one and the same aggravating circumstance. Further, it appears that employment of means to weaken the defense is, at the very least, subsumed under the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
Net Earning Capacity = Life expectancy x [Gross Annual Income - Living Expenses]Michael's Contract of Employment[53] shows that he was supposed to work for six days a week and eight hours per day. Thus, Michael's gross income should be computed by multiplying his daily wage of P293.00 by 24 days, the number of days Michael is working per month. The resulting gross income per month, i.e., P7,032.00, shall then be multiplied by 12 to get the annual gross income which is P84,384.00.
= [2/3 (80 - age at death)] x [GAI [50% of GAI]][52]
Net Earning Capacity = Life expectancy x [Gross Annual Income - Living Expenses]Lastly, the Court affirms the award of actual or compensatory damages in the amount of P54,000.00 since this amount is based on the Funeral Contract of Gliceria Clarianes, Michael's wife, with Ace Funeral Homes.[54]
= [2/3 (80 - age at death)] x [GAI - [50% of GAI]]
= [2/3 (80 - 27)] x P84,384-P42,192
= [2/3 (53)] x P42, 192.00
= P1,490,784.00